* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 47.5, the court has

determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH
C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60885 Summary Calendar

DOLE OCEAN LINER EXPRESS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GEORGIA VEGETABLE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:95-CV-407RG

- - - - - - - - - - January 8, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM: *

Georgia Vegetable Company, Inc. (Georgia Vegetable)

appeals the decision of the district court granting summary

jud gment in favor of Dole Ocean Liner Express (Dole). In D ole

Ocean Liner Exp. v. Geo rgia Vegetable Co. , 93 F.3d 166 (5th Cir.

1996) ( Dole II ), we remanded the case to the district court to

interpret t he Marketing Agreement between Georgia Vegetable and

Manprosa of Nicaragua and to determine whether the decision of aNo. 96-60885

- 2 -

panel of The Society of Maritime Arbitrators of the New Orleans

Board of Trade was correct as a matter of law.

After reviewing the briefs and the rec ord de novo
, we

conclude that the decision of the dis trict court granting Dole’s

motion for summary judgment was error. It is undisputed that Dole

solicited Manprosa’s business, Manprosa introduced Dole to Georgia

Vegetable, and Manprosa delegated authority to negotiate carriage

to Georgia Vegetable. Dole refused to permit Manprosa to become a

signatory to the Service Contract between Dole and Georgia

Vegetable because of previous difficulties with Nicaraguan

shippers. The arbitration panel held a hearing and considered the

Marketing Agreement between Georgia Vegetable and Manprosa, as well

as testimony concerning Dole’s knowledge of the business

relationship between Georgia Vegetable and Manprosa. The

arbitrators determined that Dole should have been awa re that

Georgia Vegetable would seek to enforce the Service Co ntract on

behalf of Manprosa. The arbitration panel’s decision is

“rationally inferable” from the purpose and language of the

contract between Georgia Vegetable and Dole and was, therefore,

within the scope of its powers. S ee Anderman/Smith Co. v. Tenn.

Gas Pipeline Co. , 918 F.2d 1215, 1218-19 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1990).

We do not revisit the arbitration panel’s damage award to

Georgia Vegetable. In Dole Ocean Liner Exp. v. Georgia Vegetable

Co.

, 84 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1996) ( Dole I ), we he ld that the

arbitration panel did not exceed its power in finding, as a matter

of law, that the liquidated-damages clause of the contract between

Georgia Vegetable and Dole was void and in fashioning the damageNo. 96-60885

- 3 -

award to Georgia Vegetable. Because the district court erred in

its construction of the Marke ting Agreement as inconsistent with

the arbitrators’ decision, the court exceeded the scope of remand

in addressing this issue. S ee Burroughs v. FFP Operating Partners

,

70 F.3d 31, 33 (5th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

VACATED and the c ause is REMANDED to that court to reinstate the

arbitration panel award.

VACATE AND REMAND.